Alicia Hernandez-Mendez v. Todd Blanche

── Alicia Hernandez-Mendez v. Todd Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Date: May 28, 2026 Category: General NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 26a0240n.06 Case No. 25-3755 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED May 28, 2026 ALICIA HERNANDEZ-MENDEZ, ) KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW ) FROM THE UNITED STATES TODD BLANCHE, Acting U.S. Attorney ) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION General, ) APPEALS Respondent. ) ) OPINION Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; LARSEN and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. SUTTON, Chief Judge. Alicia Hernandez-Mendez, a citizen of Mexico who illegally entered the United States, sought cancellation of removal from this country. The Board of Immigration Appeals denied the request because she committed identity fraud, a conviction that it determined made her ineligible for cancellation of removal. We agree and deny her petition for review. I. Born in Mexico, Hernandez-Mendez illegally entered the United States as an adult in March 2001. She has lived in Ohio ever since. In November 2012, Hernandez-Mendez pleaded guilty to felony identity fraud under Ohio law after she presented someone else’s identification as her own. See Ohio Rev. Code § 2913.49(B). An Ohio court sentenced her to two years’ probation. No. 25-3755, Hernandez-Mendez v. Blanche In December 2012, the United States charged Hernandez-Mendez with removability for entering the country without inspection. She conceded that the government had the right to return her to Mexico but sought cancellation of removal in view of her many years in the country. Seven years elapsed before an immigration judge heard her request in November 2020. At the outset of the hearing, Hernandez-Mendez sought a continuance so that she could challenge the validity of her identity fraud conviction. The immigration judge denied the request because Hernandez- Mendez failed to show good cause for the delay. The immigration judge proceeded to deny her application for cancellation of removal because her conviction for identity fraud made her ineligible. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C). The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed both decisions. II. Because the Board issued a reasoned opinion, we review its work. Castillo v. Bondi, 140 F.4th 777, 779 (6th Cir. 2025). We accept the Board’s factual findings as long as substantial evidence supports them, and we size up its legal conclusions with fresh eyes. Seldon v. Garland, 120 F.4th 527, 531 (6th Cir. 2024). Hernandez-Mendez disagrees with two aspects of the Board’s decision: (1) that her identity fraud conviction made her ineligible for cancellation of removal and (2) that she failed to show good cause for a continuance. Cancellation of removal. To qualify for cancellation of removal, Hernandez-Mendez must show, among other requirements, that she has not been convicted while in this country of a “crime involving moral turpitude” that could lead to one year in prison or more. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(i), 1229a(c)(4)(A), 1229b(b)(1)(C); see Pereida v. Wilkinson, 592 U.S. 224, 231–32 (2021). An offense involves “moral turpitude” if it